I found this an interesting article on different kinds of conservatism. David Brooks thinks of himself as a conservative, I believe, but hasn't been comfortable with what has been happening on the right.

Really good essay. There's an interesting corollary essay in today's Guardian, entitled, I think, Romney and the Myth of the self-made millionaire. It's down at the bottom of the Guardian home page--#4 in the most read today section. I'd give the URL if I knew how to do it correctly; I'm never successful doing it, though, so hope this works.

It's a really good one too. I particularly liked the term "Romnesia" which is exactly the point; and the last paragraph-- Equal opportunity, self-creation, heroic individualism: these are the myths that predatory capitalism requires for its political survival. Romnesia permits the ultra-rich both to deny the role of other people in the creation of their own wealth and to deny help to those less fortunate than themselves. A century ago, entrepreneurs sought to pass themselves off as parasites: they adopted the style and manner of the titled, rentier class. Today the parasites claim to be entrepreneurs.

That's the one. Romney doesn't seem to be getting very good press anywhere, does he. The election has become more interesting, though, primarily for the writing it has generated rather than the candidates or their stances.

Hate to rain on any parades here, but the distinction in the article has a major flaw. It is not deliniating factions of American Conservatism. It is actually differentiating between actual conservatism - little "c" (Burke . . .etc) - and American Conservatism - which is more like classical liberalism - little "l".
In the late 70s and early 80s a major branding shift began to happen in the political parties. The DNC co-opted the term "Liberal" after the GOP threw it at them in an attempt to appeal to a more socially conservative base . . . thus becoming "Conservatives".
In actuality, the GOP attempts to model itself on classically liberal lines - a focus on individualism - while the DNC attempts to model itself on the classicly conservative reliance on government for social order and engineering. Both parties have an interesting mix of the two schools of thought depending on whether the issue at hand is social or economic. So, because of the confusion of terms, this article is really comparing apples to oranges._________________"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

From Wikipedia:
Ottawa Citizen commentator David Warren has identified Brooks as the sort of conservative pundit that liberals like, someone who is "sophisticated" and "engages with" the liberal agenda, in contrast to a "real conservative" like Charles Krauthammer. When asked what he thinks of charges that he's "not a real conservative" or "squishy," Brooks has said that "if you define conservative by support for the Republican candidate or the belief that tax cuts are the correct answer to all problems, I guess I donít fit that agenda. But I do think that Iím part of a longstanding conservative tradition that has to do with Edmund Burke, which is be cautious, don't think you can do all things by government planning, and Alexander Hamilton, who wanted to use government to help people compete in the capitalist economy." In the same interview with Howard Kurtz in September 2012 Brooks talked about being criticized from the conservative side, saying "if itís from a loon, I donít mind it. I get a kick out of it.

Brooks is in a perfect position to read the Riot Act. For most of the last thirty years, he has been one of the Republican partyís more prominent spear carriers, having generally supported its ideology in a succession of commentariat jobs at National Review, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and latterly at the New York Times.

In condemning the partyís obsession with simplistic economic ideology, Brooks is again displaying the sort of intellectual leadership that has long been sorely lacking in both American political parties. His basic point is surely right: the human condition cannot be reduced to mere accounting pluses and minuses.